Court Filings

Justice Young filed a short opinion respecting the Court’s denial of rehearing in a petition for review concerning the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA). He explains that the Court has rarely authoritatively construed TUFTA and that many lower and federal courts have had to make independent interpretations. Justice Young concluded this particular case is a poor vehicle to resolve the broader statutory question—whether terminating a contract right to future payments can be a fraudulent transfer—because the record is highly fact-specific. For those reasons the Court denied rehearing and declined to take the case for further guidance on TUFTA.

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and ordered the County to meet and confer with the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association (PPOA) about the County’s decision to outsource security work. PPOA had sought a writ of mandate after ERCOM and the superior court concluded the parties’ memorandum of understanding (MOU) waived PPOA’s bargaining rights as to such reorganization decisions. The appellate court held the MOU did not contain a clear and unmistakable waiver of the statutory right to meet and confer about outsourcing, because the MOU’s notice and management-rights language was ambiguous and did not explicitly waive MMBA rights.

The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Ghilotti Construction in a suit by ironworker Leonardo Cordero, who was injured while working for subcontractor Camblin Steel on a bridge project. The trial court granted summary judgment based on the Privette doctrine, which presumes a hirer of an independent contractor delegates responsibility for workplace safety to the contractor. The appellate court held California safety regulations (including Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 1711) do not create a nondelegable duty that defeats Privette, and Cordero failed to raise a triable issue that Ghilotti retained and exercised control over Camblin’s work in a way that affirmatively contributed to the injury.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for ISI Contracting, Inc. in Robert Huber’s trespass suit arising from a TxDOT highway project adjacent to Huber’s restaurant. ISI had claimed immunity under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 97.002, arguing it complied with contract documents. The appellate court held ISI failed to conclusively prove every statutory element: Huber sought loss-of-use and lost-profit damages not barred by the statute, some alleged harms arose from ISI’s activities rather than a contract-related condition or defect, and ISI did not conclusively show compliance with contract documents material to any alleged condition or defect. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

The Court of Appeals of the Ninth District of Texas affirmed a county court’s final eviction judgment for landlord Matthew Twombly against pro se tenant Marcus Thirstrup. Thirstrup appealed the denial of his emergency motion for continuance filed the day of trial, claiming a medical inability to appear. The appellate court found the notice of appeal timely and held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the untimely motion because Thirstrup knew of his condition days earlier, failed to timely seek relief, did not contact the court, and did not appear at trial. A due-process challenge to the docket control order was not preserved for appeal.

The Court of Appeals reversed and rendered judgment for AZZ, Inc. in a breach-of-contract case. Southeast Texas Industries (STI) sued multiple AZZ entities for defective galvanizing and obtained a jury verdict and judgment against AZZ, Inc. for $4,539,468.25 plus fees and interest. On appeal AZZ, Inc. argued there was no evidence it was the entity that contracted with STI. The court held the evidence was legally insufficient to show AZZ, Inc. (rather than the Beaumont galvanizing entity) agreed to galvanize the pipe, so the verdict against AZZ, Inc. could not stand and STI takes nothing from AZZ, Inc.

The Tenth Court of Appeals dismissed Thomas Dione Moore's petition seeking mandamus relief because the challenged district court (the 20th District Court of Milam County) lies outside the geographic jurisdiction of the Tenth Court. The court explained it lacks writ jurisdiction to issue mandamus against a court located in a different appellate district under the cited statutory provisions, and therefore the petition cannot proceed in this court. The opinion was delivered April 9, 2026.

The Court of Appeals (Tenth Appellate District of Texas) received Thomas Blanchard's March 2, 2026 filing titled a petition for writ of habeas corpus but construed it as a petition for a writ of mandamus because of the relief sought. The court considered the filing and denied the petition. The opinion is a short memorandum with the Chief Justice delivering the opinion and the denial issued on April 9, 2026.

The Tenth Appellate District of Texas dismissed Louis Benjamin Vargas's appeal from a municipal court judge's denial of a habeas corpus petition because the court lacked jurisdiction. Vargas had pleaded no contest to a speeding complaint, paid the fine and costs, and filed his appeal in this appellate court instead of the statutorily required county court at law. The Court explained that appellate review of municipal court judgments lies in the county court at law unless the fine exceeds $100 and the county court affirms or the sole issue is the constitutionality of the statute, neither of which applied here.

The Tenth Appellate District of Texas reversed the trial court’s denial of Joseph Blair Brooks’ habeas corpus application seeking release under article 17.151 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Brooks had been jailed more than 90 days awaiting trial on an indictment for solicitation of capital murder. The Court held article 17.151 mandates release—either by personal recognizance or by reducing bail to an amount the record shows the defendant can afford—when the statute’s prerequisites are met, and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying relief even though Brooks previously had a bail reduction and did not post bond.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Ethan Frederick Hill’s appeal from the denial of his habeas corpus petition under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.072 because his notice of appeal was untimely. Hill filed a motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal under Rule 306a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, claiming late receipt of the trial court’s December 1, 2025 order. The court held the civil-rule extension does not apply to criminal appeals from article 11.072 denials, the applicable deadline was 30 days under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Hill’s notice was filed late, so the court lacked jurisdiction and denied the extension motion.

The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Appellate District of Texas reviewed Dustin Eric Rubio’s appeal after he pleaded guilty and was convicted of multiple sexual offenses and related counts. Rubio received lengthy prison terms totaling consecutive and concurrent sentences. His appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief concluding the appeal was frivolous. After an independent review of the record, the court agreed the appeal lacked any nonfrivolous grounds, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The opinion explains the court performed the required frivolity review under Anders and related precedent.

The Texas Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed Derek Joseph Daigneault’s conviction and life sentence for the murder of his cousin, Mandy Rose Reynolds. The court rejected Daigneault’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, reasoning that cumulative circumstantial evidence — including his possession of Mandy’s car and handgun, video and cell‑phone location data, purchases of items matching debris at the burn site, a high‑speed flight in Mandy’s car, and ballistic matches — supported a rational juror’s finding he shot Mandy and burned her body. The court also upheld the trial judge’s exclusion of proffered “alternate perpetrator” evidence as speculative and lacking the required nexus to the crime.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Adelide Perez Ybarra’s appeal of the denial of her petition for expunction because she failed to file the required docketing statement and failed to pay the $205 filing fee despite being notified twice and given deadlines. The clerk first warned her that both were due by March 2, 2026; after noncompliance the clerk extended a final deadline of March 16, 2026. Because neither requirement was satisfied, the court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and for failure to follow the clerk’s directives.

The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment revoking Juan David Garcia’s deferred-adjudication community supervision for sexual assault of a child, adjudicating him guilty, and sentencing him to seven years’ imprisonment. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating there were no arguable grounds for appeal; the court independently reviewed the record, found no reversible error, and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. The opinion instructs counsel to notify Garcia of the decision and his right to seek discretionary review and explains procedural steps for further review.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Johnny Lamonte Phillips’s appeal for want of prosecution because he failed to pay the required clerk’s record costs and filing fee and did not make payment arrangements or respond to the court’s notices. The clerk’s record was due December 22, 2025, but was not filed. The court notified Phillips in March 2026 about unpaid clerk’s-record costs and earlier instructed him in January and February 2026 to remit a $205 filing fee; he did not comply within the time allowed, so the court dismissed the appeal under its rules.

The Texas court of appeals affirmed a trial court order terminating S.A.’s parental rights to her infant daughter, B.G.A.Y. The Department of Family and Protective Services removed the child after she tested positive for opioids and methadone at birth and after evidence of parental heroin and cocaine use. At trial the caseworker testified S.A. failed to complete treatment, had sporadic contact with the Department, did not visit during conservatorship, and did not submit to drug testing. The court found statutory grounds for termination and concluded termination was in the child’s best interest, given the parents’ substance abuse and the child’s stable foster placement with prospective adoptive caregivers.

The court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Rockport-Fulton Independent School District (RFISD). Don Jackson Construction appealed after RFISD sought a declaratory judgment that it retained governmental immunity from Don Jackson’s contract and related claims arising from Hurricane Harvey repairs arranged through the Regional Pool Alliance (RPA). The court held RFISD kept its immunity because there was no evidence that RFISD’s board or superintendent ever approved or voted to adopt the Interlocal Agreement or otherwise authorized the RPA to contract on RFISD’s behalf, so the contracts were not “properly executed” on RFISD’s behalf under Texas law.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment vacating an arbitration award in a workplace-injury dispute. Cynthia Love won a large award from an arbitrator after suing her former employer, Kaspar Ranch Hand Equipment, but the trial court vacated that award after Kaspar petitioned under the Federal Arbitration Act. The appellate court held vacatur was proper because the arbitrator failed to include factual findings and legal conclusions expressly required by the parties’ arbitration agreement, so she exceeded her contractual authority under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4). The court rejected Love’s other challenges and affirmed denial of attorney’s fees.

The Court of Appeals affirmed a conviction and twelve-year sentence for Ashley Lynette Salinas following a revocation of deferred adjudication community supervision for burglary of a habitation. The dispute centered on whether prior trial counsel misinformed Salinas about which drug treatment program she had agreed to attend (Journey Recovery Center versus the county Substance Abuse Treatment Facility). The court found the record supported the trial court’s disbelief of Salinas’s claim because she signed an amended order explicitly requiring SATF participation and acknowledged the modification, so her ineffective-assistance claim failed under governing standards.

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences of Anthony Schultz after a jury found him guilty on multiple counts arising from a re-indictment: two counts of sexual assault of a child, three counts of improper relationship between educator and student, and one count of solicitation of prostitution of a minor. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting there were no arguable grounds for appeal; the court conducted an independent review of the record and found no reversible error. The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw and directed counsel to notify Schultz of his right to seek discretionary review.

The Court of Appeals reversed a post-answer default judgment awarding over $27 million to William Carrell and remanded for further proceedings. The judgment was entered after appellants’ counsel withdrew days before trial and appellants did not appear. The court held appellants’ failure to appear was due to mistake or accident (not conscious indifference) because there was no reliable evidence appellants received actual notice of the trial setting after counsel’s withdrawal and substitute counsel lacked authority/adequate time to prepare. Because the lack of notice defeated the default, a new trial was required.

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District granted an agreed motion to dismiss an appeal brought by Sandra Flores and Anita M. Flores against Propel Tax and Javier Hernandez. The parties told the court they resolved their dispute and asked for dismissal. The court granted the motion under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, dismissed the appeal, taxed the appellate costs to the appellants, and declined to consider any motion for rehearing because the appeal was dismissed at the parties' request.

The Court of Appeals affirmed appellant Luis Gerardo Lugo Pena’s conviction and fifteen-year sentence for aggravated robbery. Pena argued the trial court erred by not holding a hearing under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.22 to determine the voluntariness of his police statement and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found any failure to hold the hearing was harmless because the recorded statement was largely cumulative of other properly admitted evidence and there was no evidence the statement was involuntary; similarly, counsel’s conduct did not fall below professional standards or prejudice the defense.

The court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a Texas divorce suit after the trial court recognized a prior Mexican divorce decree. The ex-husband filed the Mexican no-fault divorce and later presented the Mexican trial and appellate judgments in Texas, arguing the Texas court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the parties were no longer married. The Texas appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving comity to the Mexican judgment, concluding the Mexican appellate court’s affirmation meant no valid marriage existed for a Texas court to dissolve, so dismissal was proper.

The court construed Ignacio Lara Jr.'s pro se filing as a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court's order for a competency examination. The court explained mandamus standards and the requirements for such petitions under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, including the need to show a ministerial duty and an inadequate legal remedy and to supply an adequate record. Because Lara failed to meet procedural and record requirements and did not show entitlement to relief, the court denied the petition for writ of mandamus without issuing an opinion for publication.

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District dismissed Genie Delia Cavazos’s pro se appeal for want of prosecution after she repeatedly failed to comply with the clerk’s requests to pay the filing fee and to cure defects in her notice of appeal. The court sent five notices between October 28, 2025 and March 19, 2026 but received no response. Because Cavazos did not diligently prosecute the appeal or follow procedural rules, the court dismissed the appeal and denied the appellee’s motion to dismiss as moot.

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District dismissed Constance Benavides’s appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 of Cameron County because she failed to meet appellate procedural requirements. The clerk’s record was overdue, and Benavides did not file the required docketing statement or inform the court that she paid or arranged to pay the clerk’s fee or was entitled to proceed without payment. After notice and a court order giving her ten days to comply, she did not respond, so the court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and a court order.

The Fifteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment that the federal Anti-Head Tax Act (AHTA), 49 U.S.C. § 40116(b)(4), preempts the Texas franchise tax as applied to American Airlines’ 2015 transportation revenues (baggage fees, passenger ticket sales, and freight). The trial court had awarded American a refund of $107,577.04 (plus interest) for baggage-fee tax and denied the Comptroller’s counterclaim to tax additional transportation revenues. The court held that, as applied to those revenues, the franchise tax functions as a tax on gross receipts and is therefore barred by the AHTA.

The Court of Appeals affirmed most of a trial court’s April 19, 2024 agreed order in a suit to modify the parent–child relationship between Russell Lerner and Geraldine Schott, but removed a requirement that Lerner post a $25,000 bond before filing any future pleadings. The court held Lerner cannot appeal terms he expressly agreed to at the April 9, 2024 hearing (such as lifting geographic restrictions, dismissal of pending motions, child-support and fee provisions), and he waived claims about findings of fact and docket management. The bond requirement was improper because the court never followed Texas statutory procedures for declaring a party a vexatious litigant.